Eventually, Conservative Churches and Democrats Will Realize They're on the Same Side

One of the great allegiances of American political history is beginning to unravel just in time for the 2016 election. Since at least 1980, Conservativism has more or less owned the religious institutions of American Christianity. "I know you can't endorse me," Ronald Reagan famously told a gathering of Christian evangelicals that included Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, "but I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing." Since then, the allegiance of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives has been the basis of the Republican party, one of the absolute givens of the political landscape. This week, that allegiance, which has been fraying for years, reached a point of crisis, a point at which it is fair to ask whether the relationship between the Republican party and American institutionalized Christianity is broken beyond repair.

The issue on which the relationship is foundering is the Syrian refugee crisis. It would seem a minor point, given that the United States has only taken 2,100 refugees from Syria so far and, as of this writing, only plans to take 10,000 more. The attacks in Paris have pushed the matter to the forefront of consciousness, revealing a massive rift between the beliefs and behavior of Christian politicians and those of American churches. Republican candidates, who speak with casual commitment about their personal relationship to Jesus Christ, fell over themselves developing the most xenophobic statements they could conjur. Donald Trump doesn't just want to stop Syrians from coming; he wants to deport the ones who are already here. Chris Christie would not accept even three-year-old orphans. American churches, on the other hand, are the undisputed leaders in developing a compassionate response to the Syrian crisis. They not only state unequivocally that they want refugees to be brought to the United States; they are the ones bringing them in.

Every atheist who mocks the political influence of Christianity on American politics should remember that it is the churches who are doing more to bring Syrian refugees to America than any secular organization, including the government. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared this week: "We must work with the world community to provide safe haven to vulnerable and deserving refugees who are simply attempting to survive." The Lutherans wrote, "To close the door on resettling the Syrian refugees would be nothing less than signing a death warrant for tens of thousands of families fleeing for their very lives." The National Association of Evangelicals was equally clear: "We want to help the victims of terrorism in the Middle East, not punish them." Those statements are a lot closer to Elizabeth Warren than Chris Christie.

Let's leave aside the question of whether or not welcoming strangers is in fact a Christian act. (Almost every religion has some version of "What you do for the least of these, you do for me.") The fracture between what Republican politicians claim to be Christian policies and what their churches believe those policies to be could not be more stark. This will affect who votes for who. If you are actively involved in bringing refugees to your country as an act of charity, why would you vote for someone who wants to prevent you from doing so?

The embodiment of the new Republican predicament is Ted Cruz. He tried to triangulate the Syrian refugees, claiming that Americans should permit only Christian Syrians into the country. It was a debating club tactic: He was pro-Christian while taking up a perspective that clashed with Christian teaching. Cruz is particularly good at enduring contradictions, especially on the question of immigration. He is quite willing to take up a stand against refugees when he is the son of one.

The crisis has been brewing since Francis became Pope. He represented a disaster for Republican Catholics who connected American political strength with the anti-Communism and pro-life stances of Pope John Paul II. Now they must contend with a leader whose explicit religious teachings dictate, without much room for debate, that the economic policies of the Republican party are literally unholy. But Catholics are used to separating the church's teachings from their politics—right wing Catholics will simply have to do what left-wing Catholics have traditionally done and ignore the parts of the Church that they don't particularly care for. This same double life is now spreading to other churches.

There remain, of course, huge ideological differences on social issues between Democrats and almost every Christian denomination. But on the major political questions of our time, the ones that really matter—the environment, economic inequality, refugees—what American churches and the Democratic party say and do are starting to align pretty neatly. The truth is the politics of our time are too serious not to take allegiances when these allegiances are so obviously there for the taking. Eventually, churches and Democratic leaders will realize they're on the same side. I would not want to run against them when they do.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.